|
|
On October 02 2012 12:01 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 11:49 Gatored wrote:On October 02 2012 10:26 Quintum_ wrote:
I wonder how much gridlock we are going see this election cycle. From what i am getting i see things staying the same, the dems keeping the presidency and the senate with repu. keeping the house. With obama being reelected it should take some wind out of the party of no but i just dont know. From there attitude is seems like they will let the country burn(well more so then it already is) before they compromise. One could also argue that the current direction Obama is going is letting the country burn and the party of no is just trying to slow down the process. The moment when one party has complete control and power (no checks and balances) is the moment things could potentially start going downhill real fast. Checks and Balances are not there to stop political parties, If i remember my government classes correctly they did not imagine we would have a strictly two political party system like we do.
Yeah, they didn't "imagine" it. They just created it and participated in it.
|
On October 02 2012 14:32 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 12:01 BlueBird. wrote:On October 02 2012 11:49 Gatored wrote:On October 02 2012 10:26 Quintum_ wrote:
I wonder how much gridlock we are going see this election cycle. From what i am getting i see things staying the same, the dems keeping the presidency and the senate with repu. keeping the house. With obama being reelected it should take some wind out of the party of no but i just dont know. From there attitude is seems like they will let the country burn(well more so then it already is) before they compromise. One could also argue that the current direction Obama is going is letting the country burn and the party of no is just trying to slow down the process. The moment when one party has complete control and power (no checks and balances) is the moment things could potentially start going downhill real fast. Checks and Balances are not there to stop political parties, If i remember my government classes correctly they did not imagine we would have a strictly two political party system like we do. Yeah, they didn't "imagine" it. They just created it and participated in it.
Yes, yes they did, but that was after the constitution was written, I'm pretty sure anyways. I think it took a few election cycles for the winner take all system to bring two major parties out and leave the rest in the dust.
Still don't think that's what checks and balances are meant to do(stop anything and everything that people you don't like do, regardless if it's an actual abuse of power and what not)
|
On October 02 2012 14:15 Sanctimonius wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 14:03 sam!zdat wrote:On October 02 2012 13:53 stevarius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:45 Sanctimonius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:43 sam!zdat wrote:On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:
hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest Now it's funny you mention that...  I know. This country wouldn't know a socialist if one walked up to them and forcibly cared for their poor and elderly. Having been in multiple classes that define the term, it's funny to see students struggle trying to figure out the definition without the professor telling them. I feel like the word "socialist" doesn't really have any particular meaning, independent of context. Well, it does have a definition. Socialist, n. Obama
The news talking points got you man. They got you good.
|
On October 02 2012 14:39 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 14:32 Mindcrime wrote:On October 02 2012 12:01 BlueBird. wrote:On October 02 2012 11:49 Gatored wrote:On October 02 2012 10:26 Quintum_ wrote:
I wonder how much gridlock we are going see this election cycle. From what i am getting i see things staying the same, the dems keeping the presidency and the senate with repu. keeping the house. With obama being reelected it should take some wind out of the party of no but i just dont know. From there attitude is seems like they will let the country burn(well more so then it already is) before they compromise. One could also argue that the current direction Obama is going is letting the country burn and the party of no is just trying to slow down the process. The moment when one party has complete control and power (no checks and balances) is the moment things could potentially start going downhill real fast. Checks and Balances are not there to stop political parties, If i remember my government classes correctly they did not imagine we would have a strictly two political party system like we do. Yeah, they didn't "imagine" it. They just created it and participated in it. Yes, yes they did, but that was after the constitution was written, I'm pretty sure anyways. I think it took a few election cycles for the winner take all system to bring two major parties out and leave the rest in the dust. Still don't think that's what checks and balances are meant to do(stop anything and everything that people you don't like do, regardless if it's an actual abuse of power and what not)
His argument is that the Constitution is logically perfect and was composed without any consideration on the part of the framers of what sort of society it might produce.
I think.
|
On October 02 2012 14:42 natrus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 14:15 Sanctimonius wrote:On October 02 2012 14:03 sam!zdat wrote:On October 02 2012 13:53 stevarius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:45 Sanctimonius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:43 sam!zdat wrote:On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:
hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest Now it's funny you mention that... I know. This country wouldn't know a socialist if one walked up to them and forcibly cared for their poor and elderly. Having been in multiple classes that define the term, it's funny to see students struggle trying to figure out the definition without the professor telling them. I feel like the word "socialist" doesn't really have any particular meaning, independent of context. Well, it does have a definition. Socialist, n. Obama The news talking points got you man. They got you good.
Maybe I need that sarcmark icon.
|
On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 13:01 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote:
The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard. No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing. The Republican Congress has been the worst thing I've seen in politics in a long time. Seriously, if the policies Obama suggested were for the good of the country, hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest, they would vote it down, because it's more important that Obama fails than the country succeeds. And that, to me, is pathetic. Why would anyone support this childish behaviour, especially when it has quite literally threatened the US on a number of occasions - the one-up-manship of the debt ceiling, anyone? This Congress has one aim and one aim only, to try and make sure Obama is a one-term president - hell, arguments are already being made that Obama didn't do enough this presidency. I'm sure those arguments would be louder except they know the public will blame the Republicans at least as much as Obama. They aren't opposing his policies, they aren't disagreeing with his aims, they are taking a personal offence to his temerity in being the President of the US. Pretty sad, really, and certainly not doing anything worthwhile to earn their ridiculous tax breaks, salaries or pensions. Small wonder this has a 15% approval rating, people are getting angry that Congress is being paid to literally do nothing, and make damn sure nothing happens.
Ummmmm.... the Democrats did the EXACT SAME THING to Bush.
|
On October 02 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:01 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote:
The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard. No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing. The Republican Congress has been the worst thing I've seen in politics in a long time. Seriously, if the policies Obama suggested were for the good of the country, hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest, they would vote it down, because it's more important that Obama fails than the country succeeds. And that, to me, is pathetic. Why would anyone support this childish behaviour, especially when it has quite literally threatened the US on a number of occasions - the one-up-manship of the debt ceiling, anyone? This Congress has one aim and one aim only, to try and make sure Obama is a one-term president - hell, arguments are already being made that Obama didn't do enough this presidency. I'm sure those arguments would be louder except they know the public will blame the Republicans at least as much as Obama. They aren't opposing his policies, they aren't disagreeing with his aims, they are taking a personal offence to his temerity in being the President of the US. Pretty sad, really, and certainly not doing anything worthwhile to earn their ridiculous tax breaks, salaries or pensions. Small wonder this has a 15% approval rating, people are getting angry that Congress is being paid to literally do nothing, and make damn sure nothing happens. Ummmmm.... the Democrats did the EXACT SAME THING to Bush.
Except that guy was a retard tbh.
|
How can Romney still be on the campaign trail?
|
On October 02 2012 16:13 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:01 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote:
The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard. No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing. The Republican Congress has been the worst thing I've seen in politics in a long time. Seriously, if the policies Obama suggested were for the good of the country, hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest, they would vote it down, because it's more important that Obama fails than the country succeeds. And that, to me, is pathetic. Why would anyone support this childish behaviour, especially when it has quite literally threatened the US on a number of occasions - the one-up-manship of the debt ceiling, anyone? This Congress has one aim and one aim only, to try and make sure Obama is a one-term president - hell, arguments are already being made that Obama didn't do enough this presidency. I'm sure those arguments would be louder except they know the public will blame the Republicans at least as much as Obama. They aren't opposing his policies, they aren't disagreeing with his aims, they are taking a personal offence to his temerity in being the President of the US. Pretty sad, really, and certainly not doing anything worthwhile to earn their ridiculous tax breaks, salaries or pensions. Small wonder this has a 15% approval rating, people are getting angry that Congress is being paid to literally do nothing, and make damn sure nothing happens. Ummmmm.... the Democrats did the EXACT SAME THING to Bush. Except that guy was a retard tbh.
That's not a very good argument, because he can just say that Obama an idiot and then he is perfectly fine justifying the republican congress actions.. I would prefer if we did not have so much obstructionism and deliberate refusal too cooperate just because we dislike someone. I do agree with you that Bush overall was a pretty poor presidency, but I really dislike the guy lol.
I would like to see the numbers for how many times the democrats obstructed Bush compared to how many times the Republican congress has obstructed Obama, if it's THE EXACT SAME THING, then I will just say that's fucking dumb and Democrats and Republicans alike should all lose their jobs. Not really sure what else to say, cause I'm really far left, so I don't see things from a very moderate perspective, I dislike both major political parties though.
|
On October 02 2012 16:38 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 16:13 Zooper31 wrote:On October 02 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:01 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote:
The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard. No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing. The Republican Congress has been the worst thing I've seen in politics in a long time. Seriously, if the policies Obama suggested were for the good of the country, hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest, they would vote it down, because it's more important that Obama fails than the country succeeds. And that, to me, is pathetic. Why would anyone support this childish behaviour, especially when it has quite literally threatened the US on a number of occasions - the one-up-manship of the debt ceiling, anyone? This Congress has one aim and one aim only, to try and make sure Obama is a one-term president - hell, arguments are already being made that Obama didn't do enough this presidency. I'm sure those arguments would be louder except they know the public will blame the Republicans at least as much as Obama. They aren't opposing his policies, they aren't disagreeing with his aims, they are taking a personal offence to his temerity in being the President of the US. Pretty sad, really, and certainly not doing anything worthwhile to earn their ridiculous tax breaks, salaries or pensions. Small wonder this has a 15% approval rating, people are getting angry that Congress is being paid to literally do nothing, and make damn sure nothing happens. Ummmmm.... the Democrats did the EXACT SAME THING to Bush. Except that guy was a retard tbh. That's not a very good argument, because he can just say that Obama an idiot and then he is perfectly fine justifying the republican congress actions.. I would prefer if we did not have so much obstructionism and deliberate refusal too cooperate just because we dislike someone. I do agree with you that Bush overall was a pretty poor presidency, but I really dislike the guy lol. I would like to see the numbers for how many times the democrats obstructed Bush compared to how many times the Republican congress has obstructed Obama, if it's THE EXACT SAME THING, then I will just say that's fucking dumb and Democrats and Republicans alike should all lose their jobs. Not really sure what else to say, cause I'm really far left, so I don't see things from a very moderate perspective, I dislike both major political parties though.
It's more of a running joke than an arguement. Just hearing the guy speak and looking at his background you can tell he wasn't the smartest guy to be president by far. He had a well known daddy and tons of money.
I agree I would love to see how many times the democrats blocked something of Bush's just cause he was Bush. If it's the same then everyone should be fired and we should start anew, kinda feel that way now tbh and I'm a democrat.
|
On October 02 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:01 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote:
The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard. No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing. The Republican Congress has been the worst thing I've seen in politics in a long time. Seriously, if the policies Obama suggested were for the good of the country, hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest, they would vote it down, because it's more important that Obama fails than the country succeeds. And that, to me, is pathetic. Why would anyone support this childish behaviour, especially when it has quite literally threatened the US on a number of occasions - the one-up-manship of the debt ceiling, anyone? This Congress has one aim and one aim only, to try and make sure Obama is a one-term president - hell, arguments are already being made that Obama didn't do enough this presidency. I'm sure those arguments would be louder except they know the public will blame the Republicans at least as much as Obama. They aren't opposing his policies, they aren't disagreeing with his aims, they are taking a personal offence to his temerity in being the President of the US. Pretty sad, really, and certainly not doing anything worthwhile to earn their ridiculous tax breaks, salaries or pensions. Small wonder this has a 15% approval rating, people are getting angry that Congress is being paid to literally do nothing, and make damn sure nothing happens. Ummmmm.... the Democrats did the EXACT SAME THING to Bush.
Sorry to tell you sir, but during the Obama Administration there has been a record number of filibusters by the Republican Party. For multiple years.
|
On October 02 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:01 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote:
The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard. No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing. The Republican Congress has been the worst thing I've seen in politics in a long time. Seriously, if the policies Obama suggested were for the good of the country, hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest, they would vote it down, because it's more important that Obama fails than the country succeeds. And that, to me, is pathetic. Why would anyone support this childish behaviour, especially when it has quite literally threatened the US on a number of occasions - the one-up-manship of the debt ceiling, anyone? This Congress has one aim and one aim only, to try and make sure Obama is a one-term president - hell, arguments are already being made that Obama didn't do enough this presidency. I'm sure those arguments would be louder except they know the public will blame the Republicans at least as much as Obama. They aren't opposing his policies, they aren't disagreeing with his aims, they are taking a personal offence to his temerity in being the President of the US. Pretty sad, really, and certainly not doing anything worthwhile to earn their ridiculous tax breaks, salaries or pensions. Small wonder this has a 15% approval rating, people are getting angry that Congress is being paid to literally do nothing, and make damn sure nothing happens. Ummmmm.... the Democrats did the EXACT SAME THING to Bush.
The difference is that Democrats didn't go along with Bush because they legitimately didn't agree with his policies.
Now compare this to what happened to Obama. They did everything possible to block Obamacare, which was originally a conservative idea implemented by a Republican governor. They call the fiscal cliff disastrous with the same Keynesian logic that they dismiss when they railed against the stimulus and the Jobs bill. They call for massive cuts to the deficit while saying the fiscal cliff, which would do exactly that, is a terrible thing. Are they obstructing Obama because they legitimately disagree with his policies? No, it's all political. They publicly announced that their number 1 priority is not to help the economy or the country, but to make Obama a 1-term president. They plotted to block everything Obama did before he was even inaugurated.
|
On October 02 2012 16:29 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:
How can Romney still be on the campaign trail?
Because some people will always vote republican (because it's more conservative/religious/not "socialist"/etc), even if if the candidate is dumb as hell.
Im my opinion, it's the biggest problem of our democracies (in NA/SA/EU), we don't vote for the best candidate anymore (if we did vote for the best one day...), we vote for the least bad.
|
On October 02 2012 14:03 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 13:53 stevarius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:45 Sanctimonius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:43 sam!zdat wrote:On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:
hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest Now it's funny you mention that... I know. This country wouldn't know a socialist if one walked up to them and forcibly cared for their poor and elderly. Having been in multiple classes that define the term, it's funny to see students struggle trying to figure out the definition without the professor telling them. I feel like the word "socialist" doesn't really have any particular meaning, independent of context.
It does, it has been defined, by Marx amongst other. The actual definition is that workers own the means of production. In other words, it's the exact opposite from capitalism, where the capitalist own the means and production and the workers are wage labourers, and it has nothing to do with welfare state or the size of the state.
The thing is that nobody is even remotely close from being a socialist in America, except for people such as Noam Chomsky, so every single time the word is used in the context of those elections, it's basically to scare your average ignorant redneck.
Because if Obama is a socialist, I am Mary Poppins. It's just as fucking stupid to say that he is a socialist than to compare him with Hitler or whatever. I guess some people are not scared to do both.
|
The sanctions are taking a serious toll on on the Iranian economy ...
Iran’s rial plunged against the U.S. dollar in open-market trade on Monday, taking its loss in value over the past week to more than a quarter in further evidence that Western sanctions are shattering the economy.
The freefall suggests sanctions imposed over Iran’s nuclear program are undermining its ability to earn foreign exchange and that its reserves of hard currency may be running low.
The rial traded at 34,200 per dollar according to currency-tracking website Mazanex, down from about 29,720 on Sunday. It was trading at 24,600 last Monday, according to website Mesghal.
The rial’s sinking value will fuel inflation, officially running at about 25 percent; economists estimate the real rate is even higher. Rising costs could worsen the job losses which Iranians say are hitting the country’s industrial sector.
On Sunday, Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz said Iran’s economy was “on the verge of collapse” and estimated the government had lost $45-50-billion in oil revenue because of the sanctions, which have slashed the country’s oil exports and largely frozen it out of the international banking system.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/01/irans-economy-on-the-verge-of-collapse-as-currency-loses-14-of-its-value-in-seven-days/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
![[image loading]](http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2012/10/01/sanctions-crushing-iranian-currency/_jcr_content/body/inlineimage.img.503.png/1349127974014.cached.png)
This graph only shows the value of Iranian currency up until September. So knock another 25% of the value shown in this graph.
|
|
|
|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 02 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:01 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote:
The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard. No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing. The Republican Congress has been the worst thing I've seen in politics in a long time. Seriously, if the policies Obama suggested were for the good of the country, hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest, they would vote it down, because it's more important that Obama fails than the country succeeds. And that, to me, is pathetic. Why would anyone support this childish behaviour, especially when it has quite literally threatened the US on a number of occasions - the one-up-manship of the debt ceiling, anyone? This Congress has one aim and one aim only, to try and make sure Obama is a one-term president - hell, arguments are already being made that Obama didn't do enough this presidency. I'm sure those arguments would be louder except they know the public will blame the Republicans at least as much as Obama. They aren't opposing his policies, they aren't disagreeing with his aims, they are taking a personal offence to his temerity in being the President of the US. Pretty sad, really, and certainly not doing anything worthwhile to earn their ridiculous tax breaks, salaries or pensions. Small wonder this has a 15% approval rating, people are getting angry that Congress is being paid to literally do nothing, and make damn sure nothing happens. Ummmmm.... the Democrats did the EXACT SAME THING to Bush.
Oh OPEN YOUR EYES for once. It's one thing to agree with the policies of Republicanism, it's another thing to defend the current Republican party whose obstructionism is at an unprecedented all time high by FAR.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9EY57.png)
Democrats did the exact same thing? Not even close. Republicans broke the all-time record for filibusters during the 111th Congress, of which the previous record held was by the 110th Congress which was also led by the Republican minority (filibusters doubled compared to the 109th!).
To top it all off, it's taken them an average of 139 days to confirm Circuit Court nominees compared to the 29 days it took the Bush Administration, and 99 days for District Court nominees compared to 21 days for Bush. We have TONS of vacancies in the federal courts and the Republicans are pissing off even the judiciary! They're even doing the same with executive nominations.
Once again it's one thing to believe in the ideals of Republicanism. It's also nice if you'd have the balls like a couple of other posters in this thread to actually praise Republican obstructionism. But don't even try to say Democrats did the same shit. It's not even close.
Republicans have been trying to weaken unions throughout the entire country. Union strength is at an all-time low. Playing right into the hands of the Koch brothers.
|
It's pretty obvious they're poking fun at the interview in a useless gossip rag.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
obedient workers, maybe they are learning from china. it's called efficient management!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
